ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015
Pertussis outbreak in university students and evaluation of acellular pertussis vaccine effectiveness in Japan.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should Japanese athletes undergo booster vaccination for pertussis?IJID regions · 2025Article
- Liposome and QS-21 Combined Adjuvant Induces theHumoral and Cellular Responses of Acellular Pertussis Vaccine in a Mice Model.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Bordetella pertussis in School-Age Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review of Epidemiology, Burden, and Mortality in Asia.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2021Review
- Alarm Thresholds for Pertussis Outbreaks in Iran: National Data Analysis.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2020Article
- Bordetella pertussis population dynamics and phylogeny in Japan after adoption of acellular pertussis vaccines.Microbial genomics · 2018Article
- Structure-Based Design of Human TLR8-Specific Agonists with Augmented Potency and Adjuvanticity.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies worldwide have reported increasing numbers of adults diagnosed with Bordetella pertussis despite receiving childhood vaccinations. This study describes a pertussis outbreak at a university medical faculty campus and examines the effectiveness of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTaP) vaccination completed during infancy in Japan.
methodsAfter the outbreak, self-administered questionnaires and serum samples were collected from students on campus to determine the incidence of pertussis and underlying diseases. Pertussis was diagnosed on the basis of clinical criteria and serum anti-pertussis toxin antibody levels. Using data collected from 248 first and second grade students who had submitted copies of their vaccination records, we evaluated the effectiveness of DTaP vaccination in infancy against adult pertussis.
resultsQuestionnaire responses were obtained from 636 students (of 671 registered students; 95% response rate). Of 245 students who reported a continuous cough during the outbreak period, 84 (attack rate: 13.2%) were considered "probable" pertussis cases that met clinical criteria. The outbreak occurred mainly in first and second grade students in the Faculty of Medicine. Of 248 students who provided vaccination records, 225 had received 4 DTaP doses (coverage: 90.7%); the relative risk of the complete vaccination series compared to those with fewer than 4 doses or no doses for probable cases was 0.48 (95% confidence interval: 0.24-0.97).
conclusionsWaning protection was suspected due to over time. Booster vaccination for teenagers and development of highly efficacious pertussis vaccines are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.